Comparative foreign policy analysis

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision-making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day foreign interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations). Scholars explore the causes of these behaviors as well as their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision-making in comparative perspective. In turn, CFP also offers valuable lessons to government leaders. This essay surveys the evolution of CFP as a subfield over time, with special attention to its contributions to academic understanding and policy-making. It begins with a review of the characteristics and contributions of CFP, followed by acknowledgment of early works that helped establish this area of study. The next section of the essay reviews major thematic focuses of CFP, including theories of international pressures and factors that may drive state foreign policy as well as strong foundations in studies of domestic politics. Key internal actors and conditions that can influence state foreign policies include individual leaders, institutions and legislatures, bureaucratic organizations and government agencies, and public opinion and nongovernmental organizations. Following this survey of actors and contemporary theories of their role in foreign policy-decision making, the essay develops two illustrations of new directions in comparative foreign policy studies focused on political party factions and role theory in comparative perspective.Postprin

Strategic Culture: From Clausewitz to Constructivism; Strategic Insights, v. 6, issue 10 (November 2005)

This article appeared in Strategic Insights, v.6, issue 10 (October 2005)Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Irrational Exuberance? The 2010 Npt Review Conference, Nuclear Assistance, and Norm Change

The 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) produced a Final Document calling for an extension of the principles of the nonproliferation norm as well as steps toward complete disarmament. This article looks beyond the rhetoric, however, to examine recent decisions by great powers to expand nuclear trade with non-NPT countries and the implications of these decisions on the traditional nonproliferation norm of restraint. This article seeks to contribute to constructivist theory by supplementing existing accounts of norm creation and establishment with a new model of norm change. The article develops a case study of the 2008 US-India nuclear deal to highlight the role of elite agency in key stages of norm change, including redefinition and constructive substitution through contestation. It concludes that the traditional nonproliferation norm may be evolving in new directions that are not well captured by existing theoretical frames. © 2011 Monterey Institute of International Studies, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Redefining the Nonproliferation Norm? Australian Uranium, the Npt, and the Global Nuclear Revival

Optimists maintain that great powers oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons and have a moral aversion to their use. The Eighth Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in May 2010 produced a final declaration calling for steps toward complete disarmament. Yet recent optimism belies some contradictory, incremental foreign policy decisions taken by countries like Australia and the United States that could produce a change of meaning for the nuclear nonproliferation norm. Building on the norm life-cycle model developed by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, this article links a new constructivist model of normative change to decisions by developed states to expand the global nuclear fuel cycle and provide sensitive nuclear assistance to other countries. An exploratory case study of Australian government policies on nuclear energy and uranium exports (2006-present), including the possible sale of uranium to India, a non-NPT signatory, suggests an important role for elite agency in norm redefinition. © 2011 The Author. Australian Journal of Politics and History © 2011 School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, School of Political Science and International Studies, The University of Queensland and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Agentic constructivism and the Proliferation Security Initiative: Modeling norm change

Recent developments in global politics and international relations theory have raised questions about the strength of international norms. Critical constructivists identify instances of norm change, contestation, and even regress, arguing that norms may be less deeply internalized and more fragile than often assumed. This study builds on contemporary constructivist scholarship to advance a model of elite-driven norm change with stages of redefinition and substitution through contestation. It conducts a plausibility probe of the model by analyzing the development of the Proliferation Security Initiative, the US-led program that appeared designed to change normative principles from non-proliferation to counter-proliferation and from freedom of navigation on the high seas to maritime interdiction of suspect weapons and technology shipments. The model lends valuable insights on the evolution of norms to accommodate new realities over the last decade, and it suggests the need for more contingent and multi-linear theories of international cooperation

Nonproliferation and Norm Discourse: An Agentic Constructivist Model of U.S. Nuclear Export Policy Changes

U.S. government claims of support for the global nonproliferation norm sometimes appear contradicted by dramatic changes in its policies regarding support for peaceful nuclear energy programs around the world. This study offers a new accounting of foreign policy decision making relative to global nonproliferation normative architectures as a product of norm‐based differences between presidents and congressional leaders over technology sharing. It advances an agentic constructivist model of the export policy process and conducts a plausibility probe of the model through three case studies of export control reform debates. It also examines alternative theory models focused on strategic imperatives, foreign policy change, and neoliberal economics. Case evidence suggests that different alignments in norm stewardship, and the interactions of key agents regarding perceived norm commitments, help account for export policy struggles. These often translate into unique and complex policy outcomes, suggesting the value of contingent models of policy change and international cooperation

Comparative foreign policy analysis

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision-making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day foreign interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations). Scholars explore the causes of these behaviors as well as their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision-making in comparative perspective. In turn, CFP also offers valuable lessons to government leaders. This essay surveys the evolution of CFP as a subfield over time, with special attention to its contributions to academic understanding and policy-making. It begins with a review of the characteristics and contributions of CFP, followed by acknowledgment of early works that helped establish this area of study. The next section of the essay reviews major thematic focuses of CFP, including theories of international pressures and factors that may drive state foreign policy as well as strong foundations in studies of domestic politics. Key internal actors and conditions that can influence state foreign policies include individual leaders, institutions and legislatures, bureaucratic organizations and government agencies, and public opinion and nongovernmental organizations. Following this survey of actors and contemporary theories of their role in foreign policy-decision making, the essay develops two illustrations of new directions in comparative foreign policy studies focused on political party factions and role theory in comparative perspective. <br/